High Court Cannot Hold A Mini Trial While Exercising Inherent Jurisdiction U/S 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Restores A Forgery Case
|The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Courts are not supposed to hold a mini-trial while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the judgement and order passed by the High Court that allowed the petition filed by the respondents under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and quashed the summoning order as well as criminal proceedings pending in the Court.
The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale observed, “This Court in a series of judgements has held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the High Court is not supposed to hold a mini trial.”
Brief Facts-
The Appellant who was the original complainant, filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against M/s SS Infrastructure Co and its partners, alleging offences under Sections 384, 389, 406, and 420 read with Sections 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint against the respondents was about unpaid dues and the fraudulent acquisition of a contract by using forged documents. The Court issued a summoning order against which the respondents filed a petition under Section 482 which was allowed by the High Court. Hence, the present appeal.
The Court mentioned the judgment in CBI vs Aryan Singh (2023 SCC Online SC 379) and quoted, “As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini-trial. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not.”
The Court said that the High Court has delved into an aspect which was not warranted and has exceeded its jurisdiction.
“The aspect about the complicity of a person who was involved in the forgery is a disputed question of fact and the same will have to be addressed after a proper appreciation of evidence which can be done only during trial and not at such a nascent stage when summons is served.”, the Court added.
The Court noted that there were allegations of forgery on Appellant as well and said that merely because the appellant was an equal mischief player, it by itself will not absolve respondents from the criminal liability as alleged against them. “Two wrongs do not make a right.”, the Court remarked.
Accordingly, the Court quashed and set aside the Judgments passed by the High Court and remanded back the matter before the Judicial Magistrate for proceeding with the trial.
Finally, the Court allowed the Appeals.
Cause Title: Dharambeer Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 583)